Re: Procedures Document
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Jim, Matthew, SUO WG,
My objections are to the 'way' that the procedure document
was developed, in what, for all practical purposes, was
a meeting that nobody would really have time to attend.
But time gets even more precious -- so let me do it this way:
I withdraw my objection and move that we have a vote on the
procedures document that Matthew submitted. If nobody else
is worried about it enough to second in a decent interval --
say, middle of next week, then we move on.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> Could we address the Procedures Document again. I believe you
> wanted to wait for the archives to be working for posting your
> comments. The threaded version works.
>
> Could you explain your objections to the procedures document
> so Matthew can see if he can resolve them.
>
> Jim
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o